MHB McInerney Example 3.1.5: Multivariable Differentiation Q&A

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on clarifying concepts from Andrew McInerney's book regarding multivariable differentiation, specifically Example 3.1.5. Participants seek explanations for the differentiability of the function $$\mu$$ at any point in $$\mathbb{R}^2$$ and the derivation of the expression $$D \mu (a_1, a_2) (h_1, h_2) = a_1 h_2 + a_2 h_1$$. Additionally, there is a request for proof that the limit $$\lim_{ \mid \mid h \mid \mid \to 0} \frac{ \mid h_1 h_2 \mid }{ \sqrt{ h_1^2 + h_2^2 } } = 0$$ holds true. The conversation also touches on efficient methods for calculating derivatives of functions like $$f(x,y) = xy$$ and the conditions under which the derivative can be defined. Overall, the thread emphasizes understanding the foundational aspects of differentiability in multivariable calculus.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Andrew McInerney's book: First Steps in Differential Geometry: Riemannian, Contact, Symplectic ... and I am focused on Chapter 3: Advanced Calculus ... and in particular on Section 3.1: The Derivative and Linear Approximation ...

In Section 3.1 McInerney defines what is meant by a function $$f: \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^m$$ being differentiable and also defines the derivative of $$f$$ at a point $$a \in \mathbb{R}^n$$ ...

... see the scanned text below for McInerney's definitions and notation ...

... McInerney then gives several examples ... I need help with several aspects of Example 3.1.5 which reads as follows:
View attachment 8914I have two questions with respect to Example 3.1.5 ...Question 1

In the above text from McInerney we read the following:

"... ... Then $$\mu$$ is differentiable for all $$a = (a_1, a_2) \in \mathbb{R}^2$$ and $$D \mu (a_1, a_2) (h_1, h_2) = a_1 h_2 + a_2 h_1$$ ... .. Can someone explain exactly how/why ...

(a) $$\mu$$ is differentiable for all $$a = (a_1, a_2) \in \mathbb{R}^2$$

and ...

(b)$$ D \mu (a_1, a_2) (h_1, h_2) = a_1 h_2 + a_2 h_1$$ ... .. that is how/why is this true ...(especially given that McInerney has only just defined differentiable and the derivative!)
Question 2

In the above text from McInerney we read the following:

"... ... $$\displaystyle \lim_{ \mid \mid h \mid \mid \to 0} \frac{ \mid h_1 h_2 \mid }{ \sqrt{ h_1^2 + h_2^2 } } = 0$$ ... ... Can someone please show and explain exactly how/why it is that $$\displaystyle \lim_{ \mid \mid h \mid \mid \to 0} \frac{ \mid h_1 h_2 \mid }{ \sqrt{ h_1^2 + h_2^2 } } = 0 $$... ...
Help will be much appreciated ... ...

Peter==========================================================================

It may help members reading the above post to have access to the text at the start of Section 3.1 of McInerney ... if only to give access to McInerney's terminology and notation ... so I am providing access to the text at the start of Section 3.1 ... as follows:
View attachment 8915
Hope that helps ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • McInerney - Example 3.1.5 ... ....png
    McInerney - Example 3.1.5 ... ....png
    7.2 KB · Views: 144
  • McInerney - Start of Section 3.1 ... ....png
    McInerney - Start of Section 3.1 ... ....png
    27.8 KB · Views: 147
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
When $f(x,y)=xy$ then if $a=({a}_{1},{a}_{2})$ and $h=({h}_{1},{h}_{2})$,
$f(a+h)=f({a}_{1}+{h}_{1},{a}_{2}+{h}_{2})=({a}_{1}+{h}_{1})({a}_{2}+{h}_{2})$
$={a}_{1}{a}_{2}+{a}_{1}{h}_{2}+{a}_{2}{h}_{1}+{h}_{1}{h}_{2}$
$=f({a}_{1},{a}_{2})+{T}_{a}({h}_{1},{h}_{2})+{h}_{1}{h}_{2}$
where ${T}_{a}({h}_{1},{h}_{2})={a}_{1}{h}_{2}+{a}_{2}{h}_{1}$ is a linear transformation in h.
So $f(a+h)=f(a)+{T}_{a}(h)+{h}_{1}{h}_{2}$ you can let $ \phi(h)={h}_{1}{h}_{2}$ .
Now $\frac{\parallel f(a+h)-f(a)-{T}_{a}(h)\parallel}{\parallel h \parallel}$
$=\frac{\parallel \phi(h)\parallel}{\parallel h \parallel}=\frac{\parallel {h}_{1}{h}_{2}\parallel}{\parallel h \parallel}$.
In $R$ you have $\parallel {h}_{1}{h}_{2}\parallel=\left|{{h}_{1}{h}_{2}}\right|$ and in ${R}^{2}$
$\parallel h \parallel=\sqrt{{h}_{1}^{2}+{h}_{2}^{2}}$. And
$\left|{{h}_{1}}\right|\le\sqrt{{h}_{1}^{2}+{h}_{2}^{2}}$ and $\left|{{h}_{2}}\right|\le\sqrt{{h}_{1}^{2}+{h}_{2}^{2}}$.
So $0\le \frac{\left|{{h}_{1}{h}_{2}}\right|}{\parallel h \parallel}\le\sqrt{{h}_{1}^{2}+{h}_{2}^{2}}$
And $\lim_{{h}\to{0}} \frac{\left|{{h}_{1}{h}_{2}}\right|}{\parallel h \parallel}=0$
 
MathProfessor said:
When $f(x,y)=xy$ then if $a=({a}_{1},{a}_{2})$ and $h=({h}_{1},{h}_{2})$,
$f(a+h)=f({a}_{1}+{h}_{1},{a}_{2}+{h}_{2})=({a}_{1}+{h}_{1})({a}_{2}+{h}_{2})$
$={a}_{1}{a}_{2}+{a}_{1}{h}_{2}+{a}_{2}{h}_{1}+{h}_{1}{h}_{2}$
$=f({a}_{1},{a}_{2})+{T}_{a}({h}_{1},{h}_{2})+{h}_{1}{h}_{2}$
where ${T}_{a}({h}_{1},{h}_{2})={a}_{1}{h}_{2}+{a}_{2}{h}_{1}$ is a linear transformation in h.
So $f(a+h)=f(a)+{T}_{a}(h)+{h}_{1}{h}_{2}$ you can let $ \phi(h)={h}_{1}{h}_{2}$ .
Now $\frac{\parallel f(a+h)-f(a)-{T}_{a}(h)\parallel}{\parallel h \parallel}$
$=\frac{\parallel \phi(h)\parallel}{\parallel h \parallel}=\frac{\parallel {h}_{1}{h}_{2}\parallel}{\parallel h \parallel}$.
In $R$ you have $\parallel {h}_{1}{h}_{2}\parallel=\left|{{h}_{1}{h}_{2}}\right|$ and in ${R}^{2}$
$\parallel h \parallel=\sqrt{{h}_{1}^{2}+{h}_{2}^{2}}$. And
$\left|{{h}_{1}}\right|\le\sqrt{{h}_{1}^{2}+{h}_{2}^{2}}$ and $\left|{{h}_{2}}\right|\le\sqrt{{h}_{1}^{2}+{h}_{2}^{2}}$.
So $0\le \frac{\left|{{h}_{1}{h}_{2}}\right|}{\parallel h \parallel}\le\sqrt{{h}_{1}^{2}+{h}_{2}^{2}}$
And $\lim_{{h}\to{0}} \frac{\left|{{h}_{1}{h}_{2}}\right|}{\parallel h \parallel}=0$
Thanks MathProfessor ...

Appreciate your help ... but just another question ...

How would you find/calculate the derivative of $f(x,y)=xy$ ... in the most efficient way ... indeed, what formula would you use ... ?

Thanks again,

Peter
 
For every function which is linear with respect to x and y like f(x,y)=xy, the derivative is
Ta(h1,h2)=f(a1,h2)+f(h1,a2)
which satisfies $\lim_{h \to 0}\frac{\parallel f(x)-f(a)-T_a(h)\parallel}{\parallel h \parallel}=0$. this uses the fact that there exists some positive constant C such that $\parallel f(h_1,h_2) \parallel \le C \parallel h_1 \parallel \parallel h_2 \parallel $
If f is not linear with respect to x and y, f must have the first partial derivatives defined at point a. In this case the derivative of f at point a is given by
$T_a(h_1,h_2)=\frac {\partial f}{\partial x}(a_1,a_2)h_1+\frac {\partial f}{\partial y}(a_1,a_2)h_2$ if it satisfies the limit
$\lim_{h \to 0}\frac{\parallel f(x)-f(a)-T_a(h)\parallel}{\parallel h \parallel}=0$.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K